Good vs. Evil

[Paganini]

One of the other threads got me thinking about this.

So, it's a cliche, yeah, but IMO it's a good one. The simple idea of "good vs. evil" is great at giving the feel of grand, sweeping, epic. In a good vs. evil battle, you know that what's going on has cosmic significance. Nothing mundane here, this is good vs. evil baby, and all our lives, maybe the existence of the universe, depends on the outcome.

The trick is, you have to do it with finess. If the cliche is seen for what it is, it seems heavy handed and boring. Ho hum, the dark stranger and the upstanding sherriff have their showdown at high noon... again.

So, I want some advice on how to be subtle about cosmic balance. Keep that in mind as you read. :)

I have a sort of a vague idea for a game, based on the previous, and on the idea of  Paladins vs. Dark Knights.

Clinton gave us some mechanics for a game along these lines, but I'm fishing for setting ideas here. Here are the things I'm thinking about:

The foundational idea of the game is as follows: Dark power can be acquired easily, but the cost for such power takes the form of mental or physical deterioration, meaning that using the dark power is equivalent to self-destruction. Light power is very difficult to acquire, but is constructive, rather than destructive.

The fate of the universe can't be decided exclusively by Paladins and Dark Knights fighting each other... otherwise the war would have been decided long ago. Rather, the war must be won in some medium that neither side can directly control, but both can influence. I'm thinking that "the physical world" makes the most sense for this medium, but I'd like to hear any other ideas that are out there. Feel free to throw anything out, regardless of how bizarre. :)

For my taste, such a setting needs a mythic, arcane feeling. I think that will rule out a modern day setting. To me, the mundane elements in a modern day setting really get in the way of the sense of mystery and greatness that I'm looking for. I guess it can be done, but I don't think it's a natural marriage. So, I'm looking at a historical setting, or at a completely fictional construction.

I think the most important issue - central to the game - is how the upside and downside [1] powers actually work. What are they called in the game world? I'd like to stay way from just calling it "magic" or "Force." Something more exotic would be cool.

[1] Ironic nod to Spaceballs, which seems appropriate considering the circumstances! :)

So, how does this strike you? Any specific comments? Does it spark off any paralell / compatible ideas?

Note: Yes, there is a lot of Star Wars inspiration in here, but I want it to stop there, at inspiration. I'd like to get away from a lot of the cheesyness that Lucas has injected into the franchise over the years, and come up with something serious. To me, Star Wars at its core is Space Opera. That's what it's about. What I'd like to do here is extract one of the components of Star Wars - an element I find cool - and make it the focus of it's own setting. So, instead of having a setting that's about space cowboys with interstellar horses and laser guns, I'll have a serious setting that's about the corruption of power in the war between good and evil, whatever color trappings I come up with to hang on it.

[Eric J.]

My opinion is that Dioblo should never meet Star Wars, which this sounds like.  You'll find that overcoming "cheesiness" is more difficult than it sounds.  You must give us more of an idea than what you have.  What is it centralised around, entities, or people?  What is actually in conflict? Is it a battle for power, territory or people? How will physical reality be involved?

[C. Edwards]

I see an alternate yet simutaneous reality (a world of dark fantasy) laid over top of a modern day setting.  I'll try and explain.

 The two realities would be seperate but intimately linked.  An action in one reality could have an effect on the other.  "Paladins and dark knights" would be aware of both realities and their war would wage across both of them.

 People and places in the dark fantasy reality would take on physical aspects of how good or evil they were in the "real world."  An accountant who beats his wife, kills the neighbors cat, and is generally shit as far as human decency goes would actually appear trollish in the other reality.  A place where people sacrificed themselves to save others might be a sanctuary in the other realm, a place where evil couldn't enter.  When you have someone who is at an extreme end of the "good/evil" spectrum their appearance in the other realm would become much more pronounced.  I see the other realm as a very dream-like place, where geography can change abruptly and be very extreme in nature; lakes of molten glass, mystical forests that are bigger on the inside than the outside, roads that lead nowhere, and places where if you step sideways at the right time of day you may find yourself somewhere totally unexpected.

 There is a line of fantasy books (can't remember the name) where the main characters exist in two worlds at once.  When the characters go to sleep in one reality they wake up in the other.  If a character gets knocked unconscious in the real world he immediately wakes up in the fantasy world.  That seems appropriate to the setting I'm imagining.

 A paladin in the real world might be paralyzed from the neck down but in the other world be an ass-kicking archon of righteous vengeance.  Ofcourse if your enemies find out who you are in the real world they just might pay you a visit there, where you are probably less capable of defending yourself, or protecting your family.

Hmm, how to handle death.  Killing in the real world certainly has conseqeunces that would make taking out the bad guys difficult.  Maybe evil has to be destroyed in both worlds.  If killed in the fantasy realm maybe you're only banished from there for a certain period of time (for some reason or another)  and if you're only killed in the real world you actually become stronger in the fantasy world and can still wreak havoc by affecting the real world through your actions in the fantasy realm.

Normal people would only be aware of the reality they were in at any particular time.  They would most likely not remember anything from the reality they go to when they sleep.  If these normal people are hurt or tortured in the fantasy world this might carry over to the real world as making them more open to do evil deeds, lie, cheat, steal, just not give a damn, etc.

Some random thoughts (as if the post hasn't been rambly enough so far).  Maybe people who are sufficiently neutral don't appear in the fantasy world, or maybe they show up as fairy creatures or something.  What would whales look like in the other realm?; powerful guardians of good?  

 Well, hope you can dredge something of use from that mess.

 -Chris

[Lance D. Allen]

Hm. I have the beginnings of an idea that might be along the lines of what you're looking for, Paganini.

Your first post brought back a book I read a while ago, called Prince Ombra. I don't remember who it was by, as I just sort of happened upon it, but your idea brings it back in sharp relief.

The basic story was that the battle between Good and Evil had been going on forever... but quite specifically between two entities, souls, even. Prince Ombra was one, he/she/it was the Evil which had to be defeated, or else the evil in the world would grow stronger in the interlude before the next battle. The other was a mortal soul, born with no special power or gift except the knowledge of this struggle. It was put very picturesquely that baby souls, when born, were touched upon the lip by an angel, which told them to not remember what they knew before birth.. But that this one child was not so touched, and so did not have the divot in the lip that most people have. This child grew up with the knowledge of the battle to come. That was his or her only weapon.

It had that Arthur was one such child, and that Modred was the incarnation of Ombra.. In that battle, Ombra won, despite that Arthur killed Modred in the same blow. David and Goliath were also the smooth-lipped child and Ombra. Every major conflict between two heroes of legend was a battle between Good and Evil.

Okay, so before I ramble totally out of point, let me get back on track..

Premise: You were born with the knowledge of the true battle of Good and Evil, and thereby are one of the only people who can fight the battle.

Take this knowledge, plus all of the knowledge we lose as children (belief in magic, faeries and legend, etc.) the ability to consciously effect the "dream world" or whatever that Thickenergy was describing..

Anyhow, that's where my rave burns out. Maybe I've said something that strikes a chord in you, and if so, great. If not.. Well, I tried.

[Ron Edwards]

Nathan,

I think it's time for you to provide something more concrete to discuss, regarding this game idea. So far, you're perilously close to, "I have this notion, please give me lots of ideas to incorporate in my game." If you keep that up, the only response anyone can give you is, "Write it yourself."

Best,
Ron

[xiombarg]

You'll find that overcoming "cheesiness" is more difficult than it sounds.

I dunno. Sometimes you can overcome the cheese factor by embracing it. At a right angle from what's been suggested so far, anyone ever see the TV series "G vs. E"? The battle between Heaven and Hell meets 1970s cop shows...

[mahoux]

Thickenergy-

I think the books you are talking about are the Thomas Covenant chronicles.

-Aaron

(P.S. - it's not like thispost was extremely enlightening, but it adds to my number.)

[Paganini]

Well, Ron, I've actually got a couple of different ideas, but I can't make up my mind about them. I was hoping ideas from other posters would kind of spark me in the right direction. :)

The first idea I had was to do an actual science-fantasy setting. I like this idea, but I'm afraid it would be percieved as too Star Wars derivative, since Lucas has really been leaning in a Science Fantasy direction with the new movies.

Anyway, the idea was a universe with futuristic technology, not neccessarily provided by science. So there could be travel between worlds, but not neccesarily by star-ships. The old staple of "portals" would probably work fine. The warriors for good / evil would travel the universe attempting to sway the balance in favor of their side. Of course, this would be done by trying to create living conditions in keeping with the Code of each side. Frex, the good side would try to establish peace and harmony, while the evil side would sow tyrrany and destruction.

The second idea I had was to create an Oriental-based, yet fictional, setting. The problem with this is that there are already quite a few oriental settings out there, and I can see people grabbing the game and going "Oh, just another hong kong game. Blah." without even really looking at it.

The oriental setting seems to work well with the goal of providing a mything and mysterious feel, since the eastern martial arts and cultures have a sort of arcane appeal to western audiences. Also, you've got several warrior cultures right there to draw from when creating the good vs. evil sides. It seems like this could easily turn into just another light chi vs. dark chi style game, though, and I wouldn't want that.

And then there's the idea from Thickenergy and Wolfen. I really like the idea of a mirror world that reflects the spiritual condition of the physical world. Going back and forth is problematic, though. I don't really like the idea of dreaming in and out. It raises a lot of continuity problems. (Frex, what happens if you're asleep in the mirror world and you're attacked? If you wake up in the mirror world, do you immediately nod off in the physical world?)

Also, it's a bit difficult to fit in the power acquisition theme, and the holy warrior theme, which is what I want to be central. It seems like the dreamworld, and traveling between the two worlds, would become the theme of the game, rather than the fight.

[ks13]

And then there's the idea from Thickenergy and Wolfen. I really like the idea of a mirror world that reflects the spiritual condition of the physical world. Going back and forth is problematic, though. I don't really like the idea of dreaming in and out. It raises a lot of continuity problems. (Frex, what happens if you're asleep in the mirror world and you're attacked? If you wake up in the mirror world, do you immediately nod off in the physical world?)

What if instead of dreaming oneself into this mirror world, the characters instead "jump in" via some method (which makes them unique from the general populace)? I'm picturing something similar to Jordan's dreamworld in WoT.

Have the evil manifest itself as disease, violence, etc. in the physical world, while it has a solid shape and form in the dream world. Dreaming, you can catch a glimpse of this evil, but to confront it you need to physicaly enter this realm. Characters jump into the dream world to do battle. While the dream world can messed up during these conflicts, the physical world only sees minor or subtle effects of this.

[Lance D. Allen]

Have the evil manifest itself as disease, violence, etc. in the physical world, while it has a solid shape and form in the dream world. Dreaming, you can catch a glimpse of this evil, but to confront it you need to physicaly enter this realm. Characters jump into the dream world to do battle. While the dream world can messed up during these conflicts, the physical world only sees minor or subtle effects of this.

I would say, that if anything like this were done (and it's a good idea) that it be impossible to totally destroy some evil in the dreamworld if it's origins are in the physical world, and vice-versa. For instance, if a neighborhood is riddled with hate and prejudice, it would have some manifestation in the dreamworld, but destroying that manifestation would not rid the neighborhood of the evil which infests it. On the flipside, if something in the real world is caused by a manifestation in the dreamworld (someone is possessed, or {stolen from a recent Angel episode} filled with some supernaturally induced misogyny) then it cannot be totally negated by real world means, but must be confronted in the dreamworld.

The manifestations could have attributes which can be reduced via confrontation in the dreamworld, but if based in the physical world, these attributes could not be reduced below a certain number, and something like this for the opposite cases as well.

[Le Joueur]

So, it's a cliche, yeah, but IMO it's a good one. The simple idea of "good vs. evil" is great at giving the feel of grand, sweeping, epic. In a good vs. evil battle, you know that what's going on has cosmic significance. Nothing mundane here, this is good vs. evil baby, and all our lives, maybe the existence of the universe, depends on the outcome.

...So, I want some advice on how to be subtle about cosmic balance. Keep that in mind as you read. :)

...The foundational idea of the game is as follows: Dark power can be acquired easily, but the cost for such power takes the form of mental or physical deterioration, meaning that using the dark power is equivalent to self-destruction. Light power is very difficult to acquire, but is constructive, rather than destructive.

...I'll have a serious setting that's about the corruption of power in the war between good and evil, whatever color trappings I come up with to hang on it.

Okay, I love what's been suggested so far, but if you want my opinion <waits until the rabble quiet down again>, if you want "the feel of grand, sweeping, epic. In a good vs. evil battle, you know that what's going on has cosmic significance," you're going to have to answer one question before you go into any mechanics or setting.

What Is Evil?[/list:u]What you have doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned.  I started thinking about this question waaaayyy back, back when the players in my second Dungeons & Dragons campaign wanted to 'storm the Orcish village.'  I mean, boy was I struck by a strange mirror image.  It was usually the Orcs storming the human village and with that I got to thinking.  The Monster Manual clearly said "Orc: Chaotic Evil."  From the players point of view it was simple 'kill or be killed,' but I had this niggling sense that something didn't 'smell' right.  Weren't the Orcs out there doing exactly the same thing?  It was all very complicated.

Ultimately, I found myself asking if the Orcs were "Chaotic Evil" to themselves, or to their children.  (This was before the superficial and, I dunno...fake-seeming Klingons of Star Trek: the Next Generation.)  Finally, I said to me, "No, Orcs aren't 'Chaotic Evil' to each other."  I decided that Dungeons & Dragons' alignments were how other races 'aligned' with humans (I could detect other human bias throughout the game).  (Boy the moral lesson of Paladins kill helpless Orc babies went over like a wet paper balloon, but that's another story.)

From that time on, I kinda kept a 'log' of what people thought was evil, and honestly?  It wound up being the same thing.  Against mankind = evil.  On a personal level, it almost always seemed to be the work of derangement; or was that how society branded 'evil' in its midst?  (He's not evil, he's crazy; let's fix him!)

So far so good, but what about good?  Why did 'good win out against evil?'  Okay, so I had to segregate out the stories were good just won because the author felt that good deserved a few deus ex machina simply because they were, well...the good guys.  Why did they win?

It turned out to be simpler than I thought.  Teamwork.  I remember a line from Mystery Men, Casanova Frankenstein remarks that the reason he can't be beaten is because he'll kill his own men.  He seems to think this makes him more immune to the vulnerabilities of his supporters.  What it really means is that it's much harder for him to find followers.  ("You work for Casanova Frankenstein?  Why?  I hear he kills his own men.")

Since this realization, I find I like the stories were the heroes win, not because of some conspiracy of story, but because of the support they get being 'the good guys.'  (And where the villain finally has no where to turn because they're evil to their 'friends.')  I never really buy into the idea that there is some 'outside unifying force' that organizes evil around the goal of 'being evil.'

Therefore I really like your idea of "such power takes the form of mental or physical deterioration, meaning that using the dark power is equivalent to self-destruction."  To me evil is the willingness to go to any lengths to achieve one's goals (as long as they're easier than 'going through channels').  Paying such a 'price' is quite in keeping with the "self-destruction" you suggest (and like the organizational 'self-destruction' of killing one's own men).  I believe that the only organizations that successfully peddle evil have lots of short term promises that ultimately don't get honored in the end.

So if evil empires are short term and evil is for its own purposes, how do you have a war of good versus evil?  Simple, call all opposition to society 'evil.'  Then, in a frontier setting, all parties who resist the incursion (or conversion or assimilation) are 'evil.'  On top of that add that 'the good guys' really are embattled, barely hanging on against what would abstractly be more the force of 'survival of the fittest.'  (A society is technically 'more fit' than 'everyone for themselves,' but not if it hasn't completely incorporated - a hard concept relating to 'supply lines' which I can explain later if necessary.)  What happens is that there is no 'evil conspiracy' in a 'single organization, permanent' way, but there is constant 'pressure' from anti-society forces that can be construed as such.

Or more simply, there isn't anyone 'out to get us,' we're just 'food' to them; we merely anthropomorphize the threat into a seeming conspiracy.

But that's just an example; take it as you will.  All I am really saying is that I think you best have a clear idea of what evil is, and what it's up to, before you get too far.

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

You make a lot of weird assumptions and leaps of logic in there, Fang. For example, if I wanted to characterize orcs as evil for a game, then hell yes, orcs would be evil to their children. I think that humans are often evil to their children, so it's really not much of a stretch. Or are you going to argue that if it's culturally acceptable to abuse your children then it's not evil?

If a designer says that there are long-term evil organizations, I can buy into it. Just like I can buy into magic. I don't see the problem. Yes, Evil is problematic in the Real World, there's no Dark side of the Force in the Real World. There is in the Star Wars universe, however.

Too simplistic for your complex mind, Fang? I feel for you, man.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

You make a lot of weird assumptions and leaps of logic in there, Fang. For example, if I wanted to characterize orcs as evil for a game, then hell yes, orcs would be evil to their children. I think that humans are often evil to their children, so it's really not much of a stretch. Or are you going to argue that if it's culturally acceptable to abuse your children then it's not evil?

If a designer says that there are long-term evil organizations, I can buy into it. Just like I can buy into magic. I don't see the problem. Yes, Evil is problematic in the Real World, there's no Dark side of the Force in the Real World. There is in the Star Wars universe, however.

Hey, the Orc thing was a real life experience describing how I became sensitive to the question in big letters.  A designer can say exactly that, Mike, I never said they couldn't.  I said that it was important to 'say that' pretty up front and not have to do a lot of back-peddling later.

And I hate to point out that 'The Dark Side' is exactly what I'm talking about.  There's no Dark Thing out there telling the Emporer what to do, the Emporer isn't being evil for its own sake; he wants more and will do evil to get it.  Even before there was an Emporer, there was a 'Dark Side' and it wasn't telling anyone what to do.

To sum it up, there is no 'overriding evil' in the Star Wars universe; 'The Dark Side' is not out to get anybody.  In that realm, evil is the product of man's ambition.  Now other posts have implied wholly different brands of evil and I just wanted to say that Nathan would be well-served to focus on what kind was desired for his game first.

I think you're confusing example with prescription, Mike.

Fang Langford

[Tim Gray]

Fang got there before me and made some good points. What are "good" and "evil", really? In the real world they're generally social or political labels. For instance, "evil" is applied to people whose behaviour is so outside acceptable standards that we feel the need to distance ourselves from it. It's also applied to behaviour that breaks the rules of (insert religion of choice), even if those seem arbitary. I don't like the terms, because I don't think they refer to anything useful. I prefer "help" and "harm", for instance. However, we're not talking about the real world.

In children's TV shows, "good" and "evil" refer to powerful combinations of political allegiance and personal identity. These are things you ARE, and everyone in the setting accepts them as meaningful. They can make for exciting stories. But they always seem odd, because this version of good/evil doesn't connect with real world experience for a lot of us. (If your personal worldview includes supernatural entities driving good and evil, it'll be easier.)

It links with the point, often made, that people don't set out to "be evil" (excepting cases of psychological disorder). People have certain goals and pursue them in certain ways. They become "evil" with reference to the standards of some other person or group. The most common version, I guess, is that "good" people hold fast to standards of behaviour regarded as virtuous, and "evil" people disregard those standards altogether. (That applies pretty well to the portrayal of the Force.) Most people fall in between. If this is accurate, it would be nonsensical to say that orcs are evil to their children.

This is rambling - let's go for a point. Who decides what is "good" and what is "evil"?

Also, be careful with "evil" knights gradually destroying themselves - the "good guys" might argue that they just have to wait them out. Also, what about long-term consequences for being "good"? If the consequences for evil are social, eg hard to get followers, you can certainly apply some to the other side too. Most people find it hard to have everyday dealings with people who adhere rigidly to virtuous principles. It can make it harder to get things done (lack of compromise). It can make them uncomfortable. Henchmen might be held to standards they can't live with, and leave. If there are metaphysical consequences too, "good" characters might grow further away from "ordinary" humanity. Maybe exemplars of the two sides eventually become metaphysical entities like angels and devils.


EDITINESS: Being "good" should be HARD. Because it is. If it's all, "Look at that guy over there, his face is melting and he smells bad, but everybody loves ME!", then it's not a proper struggle. So as well as (or as part of) defining what G&E are, you need to look at why people pursue them. How did they get into this? Many games and fictions have characters fall into the Actual Way Things Are by accident. This might work here if they're acolytes of some kind, but to be real movers it needs to come fairly deliberately from something inside them.

You could use a sort of RL war parallel. Bright young things sign up, attracted by the white robes and adulation, and gradually find the expectations of their new station eating their lives. This could be magnified if instead of keeping it all abstract there's a Good Organisation with rules that have developed from central principles, like RL religions. "What do you mean I can't smoke Squelfish? What's wrong with that?" "To cut your hair is to surrender to the Dark Side!" Etc.

[Le Joueur]

Fang got there before me and made some good points. What are "good" and "evil", really? In the real world they're generally social or political labels.

...However, we're not talking about the real world.

...The most common version, I guess, is that "good" people hold fast to standards of behaviour regarded as virtuous, and "evil" people disregard those standards altogether.

Most people fall in between.[/list:u]
...Also, what about long-term consequences for being "good"?

...Most people find it hard to have everyday dealings with people who adhere rigidly to virtuous principles.

Being "good" should be HARD. Because it is.[/list:u]

Okay, I was going to bring 'the Good thing' up later, but in my studies of culture and comparative religion (not to be mistaken for serious research), I have found a single unifying thread.  Virtue is based on anything that helps the group (as opposed to strictly helping everybody - outsiders might be helped, but that seems irrelevant).¹

The bulk of value systems I've seen (that would be the outgrowths of ethics as they apply in common situations) regards virtue highly and vilifies whatever passes for evil, but most of what they do is parsing out everything in between.  Not that it really applies to designing role-playing games, but you can pretty much bet "most people fall in between."  Value systems always seem to be a culturally based augmentation of 'what serves the common good.'  Virtue is often not an extension of that, but actually the co-opting of the same goals (like self-sacrifice as opposed to contribution).

What you're talking about Tim is 'high virtue.'  Being 'good' is not hard, aspiring to 'high virtue' is.  The long-term consequences of being 'good' are a society.  What you describe is the long-term consequence of 'high virtue.'  I am often telling people the result of being forever selfless is that you end up having no 'self.'

One way you could 'scope it out,' is like this:

[*]Good (with a capital "G") - self-sacrificing, highly virtuous, and selfless; putting the common 'good' above self-value.
[*]good (with a little "g") - doing what you do without hurting anyone; getting along.
[*]bad - cheating when no one is looking; getting 'what you can.'
[*]Evil (with a capital "E") - committing any act, no matter how vile, for your own benefit.[/list:u](Before Mike starts again, this is a real-world example.  A starting place for a game design, not the final result; I am not going to write Nathan's system for him.)

The problem is that after you answer, "What is Evil?" you need to address the difference between 'good' and 'Good.'  As far as role-playing goes, being 'Good' should carry some benefit when facing 'Evil,' and both should have their price.  I look forward to what Nathan comes up with for the overarching structure of Good vs. Evil in his game.  (I only wanted to foster some thought on what 'Evil' is and the difference between 'Good' and 'good.')

Fang Langford

¹ As a side note, beauty seems attached to outward signs of health and genetic 'stability.'